JUDGMENT Vinay Joshi, J. (Oral) - Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner Bidder has challenged the communication dated 14.07.2017, issued by respondent no.2 General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, directing forfeiture of EMD to the tune of Rs. 8,91,300/and banning the petitioner from participating in future bid for Western Coalfields Limited, for period of three years. 3. Respondent no.2 had issued tender for transportation of Coal. The petitioner participated in the tender process. The petitioner''s tender was accepted in auto evaluation, but, during physical verification it was found to be ineligible. 4. It is the stand of the petitioner that as per tender conditions he submitted all the requisite documents, still on the premise of giving wrong information, he was disqualified and this was followed by the impugned action. 5. After going through the tender conditions, it is revealed that the bidder is required to furnish the documents in all respect. It is not the case of respondents, that the petitioner has furnished false information or submitted incomplete documents. Moreover, the impugned show cause notice no where bears a specific reference that the action of black listing would be taken as a consequence of failure to satisfy the authorities. 6. Show cause notice dated 29.10.2016, speaks that the petitioner has given wrong information regarding qualifying criteria. It is the requirement of tender condition, that the bidder shall upload scanned copy of documents, including work experience. It is not the case of respondents that the petitioner has not submitted documents relating to work experience or submitted false or bogus documents. The show cause notice does not specify as to what sort of wrong information was provided by the bidder. The fundamental purpose behind the service of show cause notice is always to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him, which he has to meet. 7. Apart from that by the impugned communication on 14.07.2017, petitioner was blacklisted for the period of three years. The said proposed action was not contemplated in prior show cause notice dated 29.10.2016. 7. Apart from that by the impugned communication on 14.07.2017, petitioner was blacklisted for the period of three years. The said proposed action was not contemplated in prior show cause notice dated 29.10.2016. In this regard, we may refer to a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Gorkha Securities Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others ( (2014) 9 SCC 105 ) , wherein, it is ruled that, it is mandatory requirement of show cause notice to mention that action of blacklisting is proposed. Apparently, intended action of blacklisting does not find reference in the show cause notice, hence, for this reason alone, the impugned order vitiates. 8. The respondents are unable to justify the action of blacklisting and total forfeiture. We do not find that the petitioner has committed any act which could attract the impugned action, therefore, the respondents action would not sustain in the eyes of law, and hence, we partly allow the Writ Petition and pass the following order. (a) Writ Petition is partly allowed. (b) The impugned communication dated 14.07.2017, issued by respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside, to the extent it relates to blacklisting the petitioner and to the extent of forfeiture of the amount above Rs. 1 lakh. (c) Respondents are at liberty to apply legal recourse, if any, as permissible in law. 9. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.